My Model Photography setup

Hey peoples.

Some have asked what i use for a setup. I do photography professionally and have the luck of a in house studio. so thought i would share a couple here.


http://www.michaellambertphotography.com/model/studio2.jpg
http://www.michaellambertphotography.com/model/studio1.jpg


And a shot of my 360 taken under this setup.

http://www.michaellambertphotography.com/model/Ferrari360.jpg

awesome set up man! and great build! what does your light set up look like inside the soft boxes?

Great job!

http://www.alienbees.com/b800.html#

These are the units i use.

Awesome. Is it possible to create a similar setup on a much smaller scale?

Awesome. Is it possible to create a similar setup on a much smaller scale?

Absolutely. You can use almost any light source--just make sure you have plenty of it and set the white balance on your camera correctly. You can get some amazing results with a piece of white or black cardboard and some bright shade in natural light (or a South facing window, for example).

Nice setup. But since you do photography professionally, you should at least adjust your F-stop for proper depth of field. :-) The rear end is all out of focus.

Nice setup. But since you do photography professionally, you should at least adjust your F-stop for proper depth of field. :-) The rear end is all out of focus.

I achived the out come i was looking for, my intent was not to bring the whole car into focus.

All you lucky people with your damn houses and extra rooms, lol. Makes me jealous to say the least. Living in an apartment and on a budget does not work well with painting booths and proper photography.

Someday soon I hope, lol. Someday soon.

Nice setup. But since you do photography professionally, you should at least adjust your F-stop for proper depth of field. :-) The rear end is all out of focus.

With digital cameras, the smallest f-stop may indeed give you the greatest depth of field, but the rest of the pic may not be as sharp as if you opened the aperture a bit.

Ddms

Well sharpness was not in question, i shot at a f/5 when i could have gone as open as F/1.8. I had gotten the desired results i wanted.

There is allot involved to determine you Depth of Field outside of your Fstop.

All you lucky people with your damn houses and extra rooms, lol. Makes me jealous to say the least. Living in an apartment and on a budget does not work well with painting booths and proper photography.

Someday soon I hope, lol. Someday soon.

You can do beautiful work with a table top, some natural light and a piece of cardboard from Wal-Mart. The expense of your equipment and the size of your studio have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the pictures.

I'm going to do a side by side comparison (when I can find some free time) of the results from my studio using strobes vs. a lighting setup that costs no more than $10. You won't be able to tell the difference!

You can do beautiful work with a table top, some natural light and a piece of cardboard from Wal-Mart. The expense of your equipment and the size of your studio have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the pictures.

I'm going to do a side by side comparison (when I can find some free time) of the results from my studio using strobes vs. a lighting setup that costs no more than $10. You won't be able to tell the difference!

I totally agree, I ve seen the results of one that a friend of mine (alex) built and the pictures are just incredibly good, nice and diffused lightning...

A good backup-plan for the lesser gods who don't have the room nor cash :)
Hope you don't mind hi-jacking your thread, but...

here 's the link to the How-to...

Need to get cracking on making one of those :)

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html

PS, here's the outcome, i just stole his pictures, I'm sure he won't mind :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/ales12911/575M/575M.jpg

All the cash and toys in the world can only produce the quaility of image that your knowledge alows!

Do you need to shoot in something like i have - NOPE infact i will most likly just use a desk lamp and a photo tent as its much easier to setup and such.

I agree that a photo tent can do a great job also! thanks for helping us figure this out as it hard to get good shots of our builds, but it can be done on a shoestring.

I personally have a hard time acheiving the same quality of shots inside as I get outside.
My wife is the photographer in our house and has established a freindship with a guy in Germany who is a photographer on a photography forum that she belongs to. www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)
It has great reviews of cameras and such, in fact she started going there, just to check out pictures from around the world. I gotta say, theres nothing like the view from the eyes of a photographer.

While the above shots look great, i think they are alittle blown out.

Here is another example with a little deeper depth of field.

http://www.michaellambertphotography.com/model/360f10.jpg

Looks a little flat to me. Needs more light or a tweak to the curves.

Since you have a large sheet of seamless and softboxes, why not try some graduations in the background?

Well sharpness was not in question, i shot at a f/5 when i could have gone as open as F/1.8. I had gotten the desired results i wanted.

Good for you! But film cameras produced the sharpest picture at the smallest aperture (f/11, f/16) and photographers often stopped down film cameras with that in mind. I just wanted to point out that digital cameras are different in that respect. Seems like useful information if you're photographing model cars with a digital camera.

Cameras with anti-shake work also somewhat differently than one would assume. When a camera with anti-shake is mounted on a tripod, it's best to turn the anti-shake off. If it's on, it will cause blurring.

Ddms

Good for you! But film cameras produced the sharpest picture at the smallest aperture (f/11, f/16) and photographers often stopped down film cameras with that in mind. I just wanted to point out that digital cameras are different in that respect. Seems like useful information if you're photographing model cars with a digital camera.

That's not entirely true. My Canon film body and digital body use the same lenses. There is a lens factor which magnifies the digital, but that has nothing to do with the lenses. Each lens has a "sweet spot"; the trick is figuring out where that is. If you read Pop Photo's lens reports, they will tell you where the optimal sharpness is. Some lenses are f/8, some look good all the way to f/22. The body, or even the medium it's being recorded to, has nothing to do with the ultimate sharpness. Sigma, for example, makes a lens for 4 different manufacturers. The optics are pretty much the same; the bodies are different.

I can't speak on behalf of a Point and Shoot camera as i dont own one, however i do shoot Cannon SLR.

I own 2 Film bodies and 3 Digital bodies with a number of lens's. Like said above each lens tends to have there own sweet spot and it also depends on the type of lense you use. My primary combination i really enjoy shooting with is my 30D with my 70-200 2.8L. this lens is sharp across the board seems to work best at F/4.0 - F/5.6 however very nice wide open at F/2.8 or F/22

interesting discussion...
too bad i don't understand a single thing ...

I wanted to ask tho, as you are photographers, how many megapixels do i need to shoot acceptable pictures from macro-closeby?

also, is that the main argument for buying a good digicam for modeling picture purposes, or what should i look out for?

thanks,

oli

I don't really like shots with zoom lens on models since they show the whole perspective and make the model look like toy, it is much better to go closer with standard or wide lens and make slightly wider angle to distort the image a bit. I like full depth like Alex said if the picture show car in the same way (front and side) but if you go for more front view or front on top, then I like something like F4 or F5 to make that rear (or front) just a bit fuzzy.
Never the less lightning is impressive and most of us can not afford something like that :(

interesting discussion...
too bad i don't understand a single thing ...

I wanted to ask tho, as you are photographers, how many megapixels do i need to shoot acceptable pictures from macro-closeby?

also, is that the main argument for buying a good digicam for modeling picture purposes, or what should i look out for?

thanks,

oli

To awnser your questions..

MP = Size does not matter when you are going to photography your model and post it here. Size comes into effect when you are working on the image. If you are looking to crop portions of the image or do any sort of editing to it.

Ideally you can take a cheap 1.3 MP camera set up the lighting right frame the shot right and you will get just as good of a shot as you would out of my 16 MP camera.

Camera for shooting models =

Again with controlled lighting there is not whole lot to worry about just about any camera can do it.

what you want to look for on a Point and shoot camera would the ability to have Manual white balance and a decent macro option.

I don't really like shots with zoom lens on models since they show the whole perspective and make the model look like toy, it is much better to go closer with standard or wide lens and make slightly wider angle to distort the image a bit. I like full depth like Alex said if the picture show car in the same way (front and side) but if you go for more front view or front on top, then I like something like F4 or F5 to make that rear (or front) just a bit fuzzy.
Never the less lightning is impressive and most of us can not afford something like that :(

Not sure what you mean here, The shots i have done are done with a Zoom lens ( Canon 70-200 2.8L ) and i can redo the same shot using a prime lens or wide angle lens i would get the same out come.

Using a Zoom lens just means i need to back off the subject more and focus in so instead of shooting 3 feet away with a 24mm lens i am shooting from 6 feet away with a 70mm. And using quailty glass and hardware i can shoot anything from F/2.8 - F/22 with the controlled light and get the same quailty of sharpness.

interesting discussion...
too bad i don't understand a single thing ...

I wanted to ask tho, as you are photographers, how many megapixels do i need to shoot acceptable pictures from macro-closeby?

also, is that the main argument for buying a good digicam for modeling picture purposes, or what should i look out for?

thanks,

oli

Depends on the final output medium and how big you want it. As stated before, 1.3 to 3MP is fine for web work. Almost any 3-5mp camera at Best Buy, Circuit city etc will give you fine results. I have a 6.3MP DSLR that I've blown up to 20" by 30" and they are tack sharp (they were handheld as well).

As stated before, 1.3 to 3MP is fine for web work. Almost any 3-5mp camera at Best Buy, Circuit city etc will give you fine results. I have a 6.3MP DSLR that I've blown up to 20" by 30" and they are tack sharp (they were handheld as well).

I think you have to go bigger than 1.3 to 3 mpx, even for 72 ppi web work. Sharpness isn't everything; an image can be very sharp and still have no detail in the bright areas and lack tonal gradation and details. It's like hearing music on a table radio - you can hear all the notes, but you'd never mistake it for a high-end stereo, let alone a live performance. Megapixels have gotten a lot cheaper; even budget point-and-shoot cameras have 4-5 mpx now.

There are many advantages to using an SLR for shooting close ups, the most important being WYSIWYG. But that feature does drive the price up. If you're on tight budget, consider a used digital SLR with at least six mpx.

Ddms

I think you have to go bigger than 1.3 to 3 mpx, even for 72 ppi web work. Sharpness isn't everything; an image can be very sharp and still have no detail in the bright areas and lack tonal gradation and details. It's like hearing music on a table radio - you can hear all the notes, but you'd never mistake it for a high-end stereo, let alone a live performance. Megapixels have gotten a lot cheaper; even budget point-and-shoot cameras have 4-5 mpx now.

There are many advantages to using an SLR for shooting close ups, the most important being WYSIWYG. But that feature does drive the price up. If you're on tight budget, consider a used digital SLR with at least six mpx.

Ddms

The # of Megapixels has nothing to do with sharpness. Granted, the pictures will be smaller, but more MP doesn't necessarily mean better quality. I think Zoom-Zoom had used a 3mp or less camera and gotten great results. As I said, depends on the output. The images in this forum are mostly 800 x 600 or 640 x 480. 1.3mp is fine for that.

I actually prefer the live LCD of the smaller point and shoots to the viewfinder on my DSLR. After a session, your eye gets tired from squinting. I did a photo shoot for a company and did 40 portraits in a day; almost 500 shots in all. By the end of the day, I could hardly see out of my other eye! :iceslolan

I actually prefer the live LCD of the smaller point and shoots to the viewfinder on my DSLR. After a session, your eye gets tired from squinting. I did a photo shoot for a company and did 40 portraits in a day; almost 500 shots in all. By the end of the day, I could hardly see out of my other eye! :iceslolan

Live view is a nice feature. I spend a good 6 hours a day looking through my view finder. Much of the time its sports so you are doing alot of panning in some times extreme lights..

The # of Megapixels has nothing to do with sharpness.
Isn't that what I said? You can get very sharp - and very lousy - images with very few megapixels. That's because, as I said, there's more to image quality than sharpness.

Granted, the pictures will be smaller, but more MP doesn't necessarily mean better quality.
Yes it does, all else being equal.

I think Zoom-Zoom had used a 3mp or less camera and gotten great results. As I said, depends on the output. The images in this forum are mostly 800 x 600 or 640 x 480. 1.3mp is fine for that.
Megapixels affect image quality even if the output size is much smaller than the original image. The differences don't just disappear when the image is reduced in size. Again, all else being equal, a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with an 8 mpx camera will look better than a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with a 3 mpx camera. In the image shrunk down from the larger original, subtle color differences will be more apparent; tonal gradations will be less compressed; details will be more distinct.

Ddms

Again, all else being equal, a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with an 8 mpx camera will look better than a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with a 3 mpx camera. In the image shrunk down from the larger original, subtle color differences will be more apparent; tonal gradations will be less compressed; details will be more distinct.

Ddms

I would have to disagree with you here, I can take my DSLR and shoot the same item same setup in a controlled environment and weather i have it set to Low at 2 MP or high at 8 mp the quality at 640x480 look identical.

The only time i have seen any difference is when i have had to crop or process the image. Straight out of the camera they are identical.

I don't really like shots with zoom lens on models since they show the whole perspective and make the model look like toy, it is much better to go closer with standard or wide lens and make slightly wider angle to distort the image a bit.

At any given focal length, there's no difference in the perspective of a zoom lens vs. a fixed length lens. For example, a shot taken with a zoom lens set at 28 mm will have exactly the same perspective as the same shot taken with a 28 mm fixed lens.

I agree with you that a wide angle lens gives model cars a more realistic perspective.

As a general rule, the depth of focus is shallower at large apertures like f1.8 or f2.2. At small openings like f16 or f22, the depth of focus (aka depth of field) is much greater. So if you're shooting from the front of the car, and you want the headlights and the tail fins to both be in focus, it's best to focus on the windshield and "stop down" to a small aperture. OTOH, if you want to blur the tail fins, focus on the headlights and increase the aperture to f2 or whatever.

Ddms

At any given focal length, there's no difference in the perspective of a zoom lens vs. a fixed length lens. For example, a shot taken with a zoom lens set at 28 mm will have exactly the same perspective as the same shot taken with a 28 mm fixed lens.

I agree with you that a wide angle lens gives model cars a more realistic perspective.

As a general rule, the depth of focus is shallower at large apertures like f1.8 or f2.2. At small openings like f16 or f22, the depth of focus (aka depth of field) is much greater. So if you're shooting from the front of the car, and you want the headlights and the tail fins to both be in focus, it's best to focus on the windshield and "stop down" to a small aperture. OTOH, if you want to blur the tail fins, focus on the headlights and increase the aperture to f2 or whatever.

Ddms

A prime lens will typically be slightly sharper than a zoom at the same focal lengh, Just mostly due to the element of the lens.

however i dont understand why you guys feel shooting your model with a wide angle lens will make it any better?

Check out this thread, i just posted of my 360.. I think they look decent for a zoom lens!

Pictures here! (http://scalemodels.michaellambertphotography.com/360website)

however i dont understand why you guys feel shooting your model with a wide angle lens will make it any better?


The wider perspective of a WA tends to make the close portions look relatively larger and the distant portions relatively smaller and farther away. Thus, the car looks bigger.

A telefoto tends to compress front-to-back, so the distant portion looks closer, making the car look smaller.

Another example: Indoor shots taken with an extreme wide angle make a room look much bigger than it is.

Ddms

I do belieave that using a Tele-photo or Zoom lens can produce some pretty decent shots.

While i can understand the benifits of a WA lens you will also tend to get a bit of distortion to the image, an unnatural look tot he image. Ofcourse that sort of look can easily be done with in a image editing program :D

This shot was taken with a telephoto lens ( 70-200 2.8L )

http://scalemodels.michaellambertphotography.com/360website/Site/Ferrari%20360%20Modena%20Spider_files/36049.jpg

I do belieave that using a Tele-photo or Zoom lens can produce some pretty decent shots.
Absolutely! And, as you've shown, even better than pretty decent. But if you're going for the big-car look, a WA is probably a better choice.

While i can understand the benifits of a WA lens you will also tend to get a bit of distortion to the image, an unnatural look tot he image.
Depends on the angle of the dangle, of course. And whether it's equal to the mass etc.

Ofcourse that sort of look can easily be done with in a image editing program :D
That "sort" of look, maybe, but actual WA perspective would be very difficult to fake. You'd need some way to change the relative proportions of foreground and background objects. Image editing programs only work in two dimensions.

I've been using PhotoShop a long time, and I've seen a lot of trick photography, including sphericizing, but I don't recall seeing any plug-in that truly emulates the perspective of a wide angle lens. If you know how it's done, by all means share!

This shot was taken with a telephoto lens ( 70-200 2.8L )
And it's a good one.

Ddms

Yes it does, all else being equal.


Megapixels affect image quality even if the output size is much smaller than the original image. The differences don't just disappear when the image is reduced in size. Again, all else being equal, a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with an 8 mpx camera will look better than a 640 x 480 ppi image taken with a 3 mpx camera. In the image shrunk down from the larger original, subtle color differences will be more apparent; tonal gradations will be less compressed; details will be more distinct.

Ddms

This statement is not true. If the sensor size remains constant then the density of light receptors MUST increase (as MP increase). Therefore each sensor is smaller and as therefore less sensitive to light. Another nasty by-product is "digital grain" or noise as it's also referred. Look at the quality of early 5MP cameras with almost anything available now. The image quality has improved due to tweaks in software, processing and the microlenses on the sensor.

It still amounts to the person behind the tool. Ansel Adams had a pretty low tech camera and produced beautiful images. I've seen "photographers" with the highest end gear out there turn out awful images. Learn to use whatever you have access to. I love when people blame bad pictures on dead batteries! :evillol: